Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[30]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[31]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[30]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-16 19:19:31.687
	1	+2016-12-16 19:19:31.0

Caselist.CitesClass[31]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
	1	+No act omission distinction for states since their implicit approvals of actions still entail moral responsibility
	2	+Sunstein 05
	3	+Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs.” JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005 AJ
	4	+In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go wrong by overlooking the distinctive features of government as a moral agent. Whatever the general status of the act-omission distinction as a matter of moral philosophy,38 the distinction is least impressive when applied to government.39 The most fundamental point is that unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a choice between or among possible policies for regulating third parties. The distinction between acts and omissions may not be intelligible in this context, and even if it is, the distinction does not make a morally relevant difference. Most generally, government is in the business of creating permissions and prohibitions. When it explicitly or implicitly authorizes private action, it is not omitting to do anything, or refusing to act.40 Moreover, the distinction between authorized and unauthorized private action—for example, private killing—becomes obscure when the government formally forbids private action, but chooses a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it.
	5	+Extinction Bad.
	6	+Bostrom 11 Nick Bostrom. “Existential Risk Prevention As the Most Important Task for Humanity”, 2011, Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford
	7	+These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate.¶ Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. We may not now know — at least not in concrete detail — what outcomes would count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving — and ideally improving — our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us to increase the probability that the future will contain value.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-16 19:19:32.307

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Matthew Luevano

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brookfield East RL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+12

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - Util NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Blake